Yes Brigadier a good result , even though as Paul correctly states that is has not actually been written off. I would be very suprised if I heard from the Co Op or Lowells again , so for me its as good as being written off.

Here is a larger copy of the letter. Thanks

Thanks for all the help. I have just received a final letter from my good friend Samantha Barnard at Lowell. As the Co Op cant find the agreement , Lowell are closing my account until such time as they find the agreement. So I think I have won , ( five figure debt ) . Thank you CAG , Co Op , Lowell and Samantha Barnard. I shall follow their advice on step 1 on the letter and DO NOTHING AT ALL. Cheers Ron

Hi DX I took the card out in 2002. I think its the CCA. Its a very poor copy. I know they can reconstitute , but what if they reconstitute it wrongly! What if I compare the reconstituted one with the legible parts of the copy of the original and there are major differences! Lots of egg ( pun )on their face if this where to happen. Better to get some money from Lowell who don't care .

Will do. It will be interesting if Lowells/ Co OP provide a differently worded cca than the one I have ( mostly illegible but I can read parts of it with a magnifying glass )

Yes the co op have added fees post termination. And its this figure that Lowells are persuing now. To make it clear using fictional figures. Co Op deafault me showing £15,211 30 days later Co op Terminate showing £15,311 two letters from Co Op in 08/2009 showing £15,533 Statement from co op in 08/2009 showing £15,636 ( with two £12 defaults )! Its this last figure that Lowells are quoting and I am thinking it may be wrong as I do not think you can add default sums post termination . but I may be wrong.

Thanks Citizen and Brigadier. The amount is over 10k. I have had an SD set aside before , the other side did not even attend! I don't know why the courts allow them to use an SD when the county court would be the correct avenue.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40790[/ATTACH] Deafault notice , termination notice and a statement ! The staement is dated Aug 2009 , sometime after Termination and has a larger figure than termination notice. It includes two £12 deafault charges that form the amount now claimed by lowells. Can they charge deafult sums after termination ?

Hello all, Its been quiet for me the last two years , it all went wrong in early 2009. By the end of 2011 most of my debts were settled and its been very quiet since. I was defaulted on a Co Op cc at the end of May 2009 and then a termination notice at the end of June 2009( they gave enough time I think). However the amounts differ by over £200 on each notice. Q1. Do the amounts quoted on deafault and termination notices need to be the same? Also I have a copy of the CCA that they sent me back in 2009 and in its not legible. Its a very poor photo copy ( micro fiche ? ) and parts are missing where the copier has incorrectly scanned. Some parts can be read with a magnifying glass but some parts are not legible. Q2. Will they be sucessful in obtaining a CCJ against me if they have only provided an illegible CCA? In the recent letter from Lowell they say they have purchased the debt from Co Op , But the Co Op letter says that it has been assigned ( both letters in the same envelope. I will wait until Lowell do something before I take any action , but I wanted to know the answer to the above two questions. I half expect Lowell to try a SD which I should be able to set aside. But as I am not upto date is an illegible CCA and differeing amounts on the default and termination notices enough to protect me in court? Incedentally the amount being claimed now is significantly different from both the termination and deafault notices , is this relevant? Also , I had a heart attack last October and I had Angioplasty ( not looking for sympathy ) can I use this to any advantage. This debt will go statute barred in Feb 2015. Thanks

Hi They are not allowed to contact your employer , they could only get money from your employer by way of an attachment of earnings. They would have to get a CCJ registered against you first and then try for an attachment of earnings. It depends what work you do and wether its easy to get another job or not. I would suggest that if its easy to get another job for the same money then change employer at the same time as you move into a rented place. So with a new pay as you go mobile , an internet bank account registered to your old address with no postal statements, not registered on the electoral role, registered for gas and electric under one of your parents names or a pets name. I really cant see how they would find you. I dont know anyone who has done this , but remember its unsecured debt we are talking about here , if they ( the credit community ) were stupid enough to push unaffordable amounts of credit on vulnerable people then they should expect a large number of defaults. The other thing to consider is what if they take you to court and get a ccj registered against you. You cant pay , so the court asks for an income and expenditure form to be completed. If you are like me this does not leave a lot after all your bills are paid. The court will order you to pay an affordable amount each month , a lot of times this is £1 per month. So if you had to pay one pound per month for each debt that would not be to bad! You really need to read lots of threads on CAG and work out for yourself what to do , remember there are always people in a lot worse position than you. If you are getting to many phone calls get a machine called true call , I got one and its great , you can block all the dca's phone calls. All the above assumes that you do not own a property , if you do and they know about it they may try and get a charging order after they get a ccj. As you can see from my signature the F&F's negotiated vary wildly , with the higher percentages they had good copies of valid agreements , so the chances were they would win in court. with the lower percentages their paper work was not so good , but still no Gtee I would win in court. I have 4 creditors left and have not heard anything from them this year , no letters nothing. Three of them have given no response to my CCA request in 2009 and the other provided an unreadable one. So if they put a claim into Northampton any settlement will be very low. So read a lot and then make your own informed decision once you have the knowledge to do so. Cheers Ron 2015

Hi I had problems with AIC. So I complained to the OC ( tsb ) Sure enough a good settlement letter arrived a few weeks later. A third party paid and all quiet since. I believe AIC are vague so they can ask for more money once you think you have settled. Good luck Ron 2015

Hi I only settled when forced. I do not want a CCJ. I looked at the CCA each company sent me and when they started taking me to court I decided to try and settle. A few are easy and some play very hard ball. I am not qualified to advise you wether you should try and settle or not , if you decide to always make sure to tell the creditor that it is not you money, but your parents. Always get written confirmation from the creditor that they agree the amount and that they will write off any further balance and not persue it in the future. Also write on the back of the cheque that the cheque represents full and final payment and the creditor accepts this and agrees not persue the debt in the future , otherwise please return the cheque uncashed. One thought is that if you are going to live in rented accomodation why repay any debt at all ? You probably have defaults ect and would not get any credit from anyone anyway , so why pay anything? I would get a pay as you mobile phone , a new simple bank account with online access and would not register for anything for 6 years I cant see how anyone would find you , and once six years has passed you file will be clear. I only settled because I was forced and I did not feel that I could win a court ( its seems like a lottery to me , I have read a lot about this subject and since Waksman not many people are winning ) Anyway food for thought. Cheers Ron 2015 ps . it can be very difficult to get rental accomodation when you have poor credit , most letting agents want an Experian report ! You may have to offer 6 months or a years rent in advance to tempt a landlord , tell them you just got back from Timbuktoo and dont have a UK address.

Hi When I had the same problem I wrote to the DCA and told them that unless they confirmed the full and final in writing then my relative would not pay , send it recorded. They eventually sent a letter of confirmation , my relative paid , and that was the end of that. I think they just try and get people to pay any amount and then chase them for the balance , hence the need for written confirmation from the DCA

Hi All I have agreed a few Full and final settlements with creditors , see my signature for details. The whole settlement process is a bit hit and miss. At one extreme I dealt with a firm called AIC who were a nightmare. At the other end of the scales I dealt with a very nice , polite young lady at a DCA who told me instantly what they would accept. I then offered about 10% less and she asked her manager and it was agreed. Very easy and straight forward (She was a new employee). Hope this info helps

Hi Creedy Maroon is correct. You must always use a third party cheque. There is case law that when someone else pays the amount they form a contract with the creditor once the cheque is cashed. If the creditor then continued to persue the debt they would be acting fraudulenty towards the third party. To be sure on a F&F always get a letter from the creditor on their headed paper stating the terms of settlement . You can then prove they knew they were settling and have a third party pay the amount. I always write on the back of the cheque aswell. A statement of something like 'Please return the cheque uncashed within seven days if you do not agree with the above terms'. AIC actually know about F&F. They will try and make you pay quickly by card. They may give you a very short time to pay. They gave me one day ! But once you agree a figure make sure you get it in writing and follow the advice above. There are some good threads on cag on F&F have a look around. Ron

Hi I dealt with allied international on a Lloyds credit card. They agreed a 30% F&F fairly easily on behalf of Lloyds. But they refused to provide a letter showing that they accepted the third party cheque as F&F and not to persue the debt in the future. So I refused to pay until they provided a letter showing the above. In the end I made a formal complaint to lloyds and magically a proper settlement letter appeared . It appeared to me that AI were just trying to get me to pay and then say this was a part payment and continue to chase me for the remaining balance. This is a real danger , be careful.

Hi Here is an article which sheds some light on F&F. It seems to me that if a creditor cashes the cheque and does not demand any further payment soon after then this will stand up in court. If the creditor cashes the cheque and writes to you thanks for the part payment where is the rest , then IMHO the creditor will win in court. So if you want to make sure of a full and final you have to get the creditor or DCA to write to you accepting the amount before you send a third party cheque. Even then I write on the back of the cheque ( only cash this cheque if accept as F&F on account numer 123456 , belt and braces approch ). So far I have had no problems with this , apart from some real hard nosed dca's who agreed the amount but would not commit to F&F in writing. With these do not pay until you get a letter from them accepting the amount in F&F , they will give in eventually. With AIC I called the OC and they made them tell AIC to confirm the F&F ( it was quite funny as AIC said they would never write F&F , they did in the end). Anyway here is an article which helped me understand the legalities around F&F. found on a web site somewhere............ It is commonly thought that a person is more likely to accept an offer in settlement if the money is put in front of them and they are given the chance to walk away with it. Psychologically speaking there may be some truth in this. Chris Tarrant is a keen proponent of this theory as evidenced by his continual waving of the cheque in the direction of the sweating contestant. But whilst it may make thrilling television, does it make commercial sense when entering into settlement negotiations? Certainly if there are elements of a claim that are admitted, a payment can be made in satisfaction of only those elements, rather than the amount being treated by the receiving party as a payment on account for all of the elements making up the entire claim (Croft v Lumley (1). However, one might wish to attempt to force the other side to accept an offer, which is lower than the amount claimed, in full satisfaction of the claim. This is where problems can arise. Where a cheque for an amount lower than that being claimed is sent out under the cover of a letter that explains that the amount is proffered in full and final settlement, does the retention or cashing of that cheque amount to acceptance of the amount in full and final settlement? The case law does not point to a hard and fast rule, rather each case is decided on its facts, and the party offering the lower figure must prove that there was accord and satisfaction. Authority on this point stems from Day v McLea (2). This was supported by the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal in Stour Valley Builders v Stuart (3). The decision of the Court of Appeal was followed by a further case reported in 2001 (4) and applied by a further two cases in 2003 (5). The principle therefore looks at least to have been decided, even if it is not one whose application it is easy to predict. Precise issues of timing play a part and you may be required to respond quickly. In the United States all doubt has been removed from such settlement offers. If the receiving party banks a cheque that is offered in full and final settlement, agreement to the terms of settlement is imputed as an inference of law (6). This approach, whilst straightforward, was criticised in Stour Valley as it ignores the actual intention of the receiving party. If there is to be accord and satisfaction the debtor must prove that there was agreement between the parties as to settlement. This requirement for 'agreement' is overridden somewhat once time has passed. Lloyd LJ stated that , "what matters is not what the creditor himself intends, but what, by his words and conduct, he has led the [debtor] to believe" (7). In Stour Valley there was some disagreement over the amount outstanding after some building works had been carried out. The customer decided to send a cheque for a lower amount than that claimed by the builders and stated in his letter that the amount was in full and final settlement of all claims. The cheque arrived on day 1. The builders cashed the cheque and it cleared on day 5. On day 7 the builders spoke to the customer and told him that the amount could not be accepted in full and final settlement. This delay of seven days was not considered fatal and it was held that the builders were entitled to treat the cheque as a payment on account. Lloyd LJ considered that cashing the cheque would always be strong evidence of acceptance, especially where an immediate rejection of the offer is not forthcoming. As far as a creditor is concerned, therefore, the communication of the rejection must occur "within a few days" for it to be valid. In this case a delay of one week fell within this band. In another case a delay of seven weeks (8) was found to be too long and accord and satisfaction was established. It appears, therefore, that the correct question to ask is whether the creditor's conduct caused the debtor to think that the money was accepted in satisfaction. I consider two recent cases below to show the opposite results that can occur. In The Commissioners of Inland Revenue v Fry, Mrs Fry owed the Inland Revenue over £100,000. She had no assets or other means to pay this amount. Mr Fry wished that his wife avoided bankruptcy proceedings and so in May 1998 offered the Inland Revenue £10,000 in settlement of its claim. This was rejected by the Revenue in September 1998. However, no proceedings were brought and in May 1999 Mr Fry sent a cheque for £10,000 to the Revenue in full and final settlement. At the Inland Revenue, the procedure for dealing with all correspondence was that any enclosed cheques went one way to be banked and the letters went another way to be read. The cheque was therefore banked immediately. The letter was dealt with some four days later at which point the rejection of the offer was communicated to Mr and Mrs Fry. The Inland Revenue were still entitled to claim the full amount from Mrs Fry and treat the amount received as a payment on account. In Bracken v Billinghurst an employer who had been awarded £45,000 as the result of an adjudication, told the building contractor on the other side that it would accept just £6,000 in settlement of this award. The other side decided to send a cheque to the employer for £5,000 in full and final settlement. However, in this case the covering letter stated that if the offer was not accepted the employer should return the cheque. Timing was key in this case as two weeks passed before the employer cashed the cheque and wrote to the contractor rejecting the offer in settlement and furthermore stated that it would pursue them for the total award. The court held that this was too long a period for it to have held the cheque and not informed the contractor of its intentions. This delay, combined with the clear terms set out in the contractor's letter, meant that there had been accord and satisfaction (i.e. the debt had been settled at only £5,000). This last case highlights the dangers present in this area and the importance of acting quickly. One cannot treat a sum received as a payment on account without informing the other party of this intention sufficiently quickly. Where you are the party making the lower offer you should be as clear as possible about the terms on which the cheque may be cashed. Nevertheless as can be seen from the cases mentioned above, the other side may still be able to accept the cheque as a payment on account as long as it responds swiftly. If this treatment of the offered amount is unacceptable to you then it may be prudent not to make the offer in this manner. Finally, if such an offer is to be made directly by you, the client, rather than through lawyers, it is important to understand the significance of the terms on which the offer is made. In a recent case a dispute arose between a company, and a contractor who regularly provided services to the company. The company ordinarily paid the worker's fees by electronic transfer and subsequently, when advised to send a cheque in offer of full and final settlement, the company transferred the amount direct into the worker's bank account using its ordinary method of electronic transfer. Such a transfer did not require the other party to do anything to accept the money; indeed it would have required them to have actively transferred the funds back out in order to reject it. This would undoubtedly weaken any subsequent claim that the worker had accepted the sum in full and final settlement.

Hi Tesco (RBS) are getting a bit tiresome recently. I think they may file a County Court claim soon. The CCA above is poor in mho , but it might be enfoceable with the right Judge. Tesco defaulted the account for say £7560 ( changed amount) then the termination notice was for £7625 another £65 on top of the default notice about a month after the default. Three months later a DCA asks for £7690 another £65 more than the termination notice. I hope they have messed up , with all my other cards the amount remains constant ( even the otherhalf's RBS ). Has anyone any knowledge wether the 17 days given on the default notice has been used to win any case's. Or does it just build up as part of the non compliance of the lender? Cheers Ron

Sad to hear of the treatment you received in court. I had a Morgan Stanley Card that was sold to me over the telephone. I know that nothing was ever signed. The account was transferred to Barclays some years ago. Barclays have not responded to any requests for the cca or sar. They have not chased me very hard either. Banks did cold call for credit cards , so it could be said that no agreement was ever issued. This would get around waksman and an agreement would have to be produced.

Update. I have folded , had a relative pay the 85% they wanted to settle. I looked at the papers for hours. We have a post 2007 CCA ( not good ), that looks enforceable to me. No default notice and not much else to go on. They did provide the papers I asked for ! All that was missing was the default notice .Had a chat with a legal friend and he told me to be careful of the costs if I lost it could be very high (6K plus ). It would have been almost gtd that Lloyds would go for a charging order if they won , so on to the next one. A point to consider is Apex offered to settle for 60% on behalf of Lloyds earlier in the year but I could not get any one to pay it. I have generally found the DCA's easier and cheaper to deal with than the lenders direct. One interesting point is we received the SAR report from Lloyds and all of sudden the CCA has a stamp on it ( Lloyds signature and date in 2007 ! ). A clever Barrister would just say it was scanned at a different stage in the process , blah , blah. I think this signature and date stamp has been added recently. After meeting a bully of a Judge at my SD hearing I understand how there are so many cases where people do not do very well in court. On the bright side M&S have settled at 40% recently and I did screw Lloyds for 29% F&F some time ago! So you can't win em all. It gives me an overall settlement percentage with lloyds at 57% which makes me feel better. Incidentally , I have only one more creditor who has a CCA ,looking to sort this one out then that may well be the end of it , we will see. The lenders who have no CCA have been silent for a few months , so I will wait and see. I would not describe Lloyds as reputable or any other nice words. Having read articles in the Times where a secret agent reporter worked for their 'Solicitors ' SCM, they uncovered all sorts of poor practice. I suggest that they are the same as all the other lenders , no better no worse. But reputable is not a word I would use to describe them. Cheers Ron 2015

Hi Just been looking at your post of the 25th , number 39. You have left personal details on the 2nd page of repudiation. Best if you remove them. Good luck Cheers Ron

Hi Pumpy. They have refused all my offers! I am astounded. I think I will roll over one this one , it leaves me skint , but we did use the card ect. 85% is a very high figure , but I cant see much chance of sucess, we could delay things , but whats the point. I am going to ask for a Tomlin for 85% and get them to write a letter confirming a nil balance on the CRA and partial settlement shown. I was never any good at chess.... Thanks for your help. Ron

I have just looked at the Formal demand letter issued by SCM on 18/08/2009 and it quotes a balance of £xx,111 . This is the same as the August 2009 Lloyds statement. After this time no further late or overlimit charges where made. Presumably this should match the figure quoted on the D/N. The claim from Northampton quotes a figure of £xx,897 in June 2009. So an extra £786 was added in interest after the D/N was issued and as we have been told by SCM that the D/N was issued 17/07/09 surley the late and over limit charges made on the 11/08/2009 for £24 make the total quoted in the final demand incorrect! Or am I wrong?

Hi Thanks Pummpy , that is a very good angle. SCM say a default notice was delivered. So what! What did the D/N say ? Who knows? Was it correct ? Who knows ? One other point , they say they defaulted the account on 17/07/2009. They continued to add interest and late payment fees and over limit charges until 11 August 2009. The late payment charges and over limit charges then stopped and interest was added each month until 11 Nov 2009. From then on the amount has not changed. So the question I am asking is does the addition of late and over limit charges or interest after they issued a D/N ( they say on 17/07/2009 ) make the total amount claimed incorrect? Incidentally they have refused 70% f&f and I have reoffered 75% f&f! Thats the camping holiday in Cornwall gone..... If they refuse the 75% , I will just have to fight with what I have as I can't get any more money. One other question , if the DJ agrees that a copy of the D/N is mandatory , can they just re consitute one? And if the case is truck out , can they just re issue a new D/N and start a new claim? No PPI in this one. Cheers Ron

Thanks all. I will get a complaint off to the OFT soon. The more complaints the better , something needs to be done , in the light of the recent debt related suicides I think I will write to my MP aswell , it cant hurt. The debt collection industry needs to be firmly regulated ,IMO its like the wild west at the moment. I think as I settled prior to the set aside hearing my ability to claim all costs was lost , DJ said I could only claim the fee for the set aside , I don't think I paid anything! Cest la vie. Struggling with Lloyds / SCM now.... Cheers Ron